4 ms·

What about my "dismissal" is generic? I gave a specific reason for my dismissal. "Ok Boomer" or "she is old" would have been generic, but that is not what I wro

What about my "dismissal" is generic? I gave a specific reason for my dismissal. "Ok Boomer" or "she is old" would have been generic, but that is not what I wrote. I didn't mention her age at all.

pvg 7y ago
I didn't mention her age at all. "I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age" is about half your comment.
- pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
  I forgot I mentioned the age - but still, it is in the opposite sense. It is not part of the reason I "dismiss" her now, I only mentioned it to soften the criticism. In any case, why shouldn't her actions be relevant? To me, it changed my opinion about her. Why wouldn't it be relevant for others, too?
  - pvg 7y ago
    Maybe they are relevant but you'd have to put it in some way that describes their relevance. "Old lady, trump, fite me!" is not a meaningful attempt to start a discussion which is why you got groused at by a mod and flagged by users. It's not even clear she ever actually made the type of claim you're describing but the form of the comment is so poopy that's mostly beside the point.
    - pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
      Again, that is not what I said. I said she endorsed a specific claim about the development in US society, that is absolutely ridiculous. It has nothing to do with Trump or her age. And what do you mean by "it is not even clear"? That is your criticism, that you flat out don't believe me? Then just say so right away, and don't make up phony reasons to dismiss my tweet. I don't care enough about you to google for her specific statements, though. If you don't believe me, fine, whatever. And my comment is "poopy"? I mentioned a specific reason why I don't hold her in high regard anymore. Yeah, she is a woman and she is old, but I am still allowed to not revere her. I know that is hard for liberals to grasp.
      - pvg 7y ago
        Let me reproduce your original comment in full here, just for easy reference. I'm still flabbergasted that she and others seriously proclaimed Trump's election would bring about the scenario of the handmaids tale. I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age, but I've lost all interest in her work. (downvotes incoming in 3...2...1....) On its face, the intent of this seems inflammatory and you got the votes, flags and moderator talking-to for your efforts. This is definitely unpleasant - nobody likes being berated in public and I sympathize. As psychologist Don Vincenzo Coccotti puts it: That smarts, doesn't it? [...] Fucks you all up. You get that pain shootin' through your brain, your eyes fill up with water. That ain't any kind of fun In my personal experience, the effect does not last days but I'm no psychologist. Perhaps it's an explanation for the long sequence of curious defenses you've offered. Briefly summarized, they include: - The comment isn't flamebait, the real flamebait is the article itself. - The comment is not dismissive. - The comment does not mention her age. - The comment does mention her age but calling her viewpoint ridiculous while suggesting it may be a result of age-related cognitive decline is practically a compliment. - The comment has nothing to do with Trump or her age. - The comment is not an inaccurate caricature of her views but your interlocutors are not worthy of being shown the error of their interpretation. - It is wrong to call the comment poopy. Here I want to point out I didn't call the comment poopy, I called its form poopy. Whatever you meant by it, it's expressed in ways the HN guidelines strongly disapprove of. You'd be right to object that calling the form of a comment poopy is also contrary to the guidelines. I appologize and want to assure you it was intended strictly in the Pickwickian sense - a lapse into familiarity I hope you can understand and forgive in light of our long conversation. I'll also admit I have some trouble believing that someone whose previous commentary here includes a suggestion Wikipedia is controlled by feminists and 'SJW's once held Atwood and her work in high regard but recently changed their mind. I'm prepared to accept this is unreasonable bias on my end. Lastly, I agree with you that if liberals are, as you suggest, responsible for your comment, they deserve our opprobrium and contempt.
        pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
        "Inflammatory" - well some people seem to adore her, and I don't. Maybe it can't be helped that some people will be inflamed. Unfortunately I don't share the opinion of the people who adore her. Did I say the comment is not dismissive? I don't remember. (Edit: you claimed my dismissal was "generic" and I questioned that - the issue was with "generic", not with "dismissal". You have bad reading comprehension, or you deliberately play stupid). I used to like her, and because of recent developments I don't anymore. That's all there is to it. The age thing comes into play because I have known about her for so long - so it is possible that she actually used to be good and just became "bad" in recent times. It's weird that you read so many things into it. It only is related to Trump in that Trump's election seems to have triggered the demonstrations she commented on. If you choose not to believe me, that's fine, but it's not really an argument. It's just a belief statement from your side. I don't think it is worth trying to change your beliefs at this point. But I also don't think your beliefs are better than mine. Shove them up your arse, for all I care. (I guess I think your beliefs are kind of "poopy"...). Oh and shove your HN guildelines that you are hiding behind up your arse, too, while you are at it. If those guidelines mean it is not possible to tolerate differing opinions on HN anymore (which frequently seems to be the case), they are not all that good after all.

What about my "dismissal" is generic? I gave a specific reason for my dismissal. "Ok Boomer" or "she is old" would have been generic, but that is not what I wrote. I didn't mention her age at all.

pvg 7y ago

I didn't mention her age at all. "I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age" is about half your comment.

pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
I forgot I mentioned the age - but still, it is in the opposite sense. It is not part of the reason I "dismiss" her now, I only mentioned it to soften the criticism. In any case, why shouldn't her actions be relevant? To me, it changed my opinion about her. Why wouldn't it be relevant for others, too?
- pvg 7y ago
  Maybe they are relevant but you'd have to put it in some way that describes their relevance. "Old lady, trump, fite me!" is not a meaningful attempt to start a discussion which is why you got groused at by a mod and flagged by users. It's not even clear she ever actually made the type of claim you're describing but the form of the comment is so poopy that's mostly beside the point.
  - pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
    Again, that is not what I said. I said she endorsed a specific claim about the development in US society, that is absolutely ridiculous. It has nothing to do with Trump or her age. And what do you mean by "it is not even clear"? That is your criticism, that you flat out don't believe me? Then just say so right away, and don't make up phony reasons to dismiss my tweet. I don't care enough about you to google for her specific statements, though. If you don't believe me, fine, whatever. And my comment is "poopy"? I mentioned a specific reason why I don't hold her in high regard anymore. Yeah, she is a woman and she is old, but I am still allowed to not revere her. I know that is hard for liberals to grasp.
    - pvg 7y ago
      Let me reproduce your original comment in full here, just for easy reference. I'm still flabbergasted that she and others seriously proclaimed Trump's election would bring about the scenario of the handmaids tale. I guess she should be excused for being ridiculous because of her old age, but I've lost all interest in her work. (downvotes incoming in 3...2...1....) On its face, the intent of this seems inflammatory and you got the votes, flags and moderator talking-to for your efforts. This is definitely unpleasant - nobody likes being berated in public and I sympathize. As psychologist Don Vincenzo Coccotti puts it: That smarts, doesn't it? [...] Fucks you all up. You get that pain shootin' through your brain, your eyes fill up with water. That ain't any kind of fun In my personal experience, the effect does not last days but I'm no psychologist. Perhaps it's an explanation for the long sequence of curious defenses you've offered. Briefly summarized, they include: - The comment isn't flamebait, the real flamebait is the article itself. - The comment is not dismissive. - The comment does not mention her age. - The comment does mention her age but calling her viewpoint ridiculous while suggesting it may be a result of age-related cognitive decline is practically a compliment. - The comment has nothing to do with Trump or her age. - The comment is not an inaccurate caricature of her views but your interlocutors are not worthy of being shown the error of their interpretation. - It is wrong to call the comment poopy. Here I want to point out I didn't call the comment poopy, I called its form poopy. Whatever you meant by it, it's expressed in ways the HN guidelines strongly disapprove of. You'd be right to object that calling the form of a comment poopy is also contrary to the guidelines. I appologize and want to assure you it was intended strictly in the Pickwickian sense - a lapse into familiarity I hope you can understand and forgive in light of our long conversation. I'll also admit I have some trouble believing that someone whose previous commentary here includes a suggestion Wikipedia is controlled by feminists and 'SJW's once held Atwood and her work in high regard but recently changed their mind. I'm prepared to accept this is unreasonable bias on my end. Lastly, I agree with you that if liberals are, as you suggest, responsible for your comment, they deserve our opprobrium and contempt.
      - pksdjfikkkkdsff 7y ago
        "Inflammatory" - well some people seem to adore her, and I don't. Maybe it can't be helped that some people will be inflamed. Unfortunately I don't share the opinion of the people who adore her. Did I say the comment is not dismissive? I don't remember. (Edit: you claimed my dismissal was "generic" and I questioned that - the issue was with "generic", not with "dismissal". You have bad reading comprehension, or you deliberately play stupid). I used to like her, and because of recent developments I don't anymore. That's all there is to it. The age thing comes into play because I have known about her for so long - so it is possible that she actually used to be good and just became "bad" in recent times. It's weird that you read so many things into it. It only is related to Trump in that Trump's election seems to have triggered the demonstrations she commented on. If you choose not to believe me, that's fine, but it's not really an argument. It's just a belief statement from your side. I don't think it is worth trying to change your beliefs at this point. But I also don't think your beliefs are better than mine. Shove them up your arse, for all I care. (I guess I think your beliefs are kind of "poopy"...). Oh and shove your HN guildelines that you are hiding behind up your arse, too, while you are at it. If those guidelines mean it is not possible to tolerate differing opinions on HN anymore (which frequently seems to be the case), they are not all that good after all.